Randomized Comparison of Electronic Health Record Alert Types in Eliciting Responses about Prognosis in Gynecologic Oncology Patients.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-17 DOI:10.1055/a-2247-9355
Robert Clayton Musser, Rashaud Senior, Laura J Havrilesky, Jordan Buuck, David J Casarett, Salam Ibrahim, Brittany A Davidson
{"title":"Randomized Comparison of Electronic Health Record Alert Types in Eliciting Responses about Prognosis in Gynecologic Oncology Patients.","authors":"Robert Clayton Musser, Rashaud Senior, Laura J Havrilesky, Jordan Buuck, David J Casarett, Salam Ibrahim, Brittany A Davidson","doi":"10.1055/a-2247-9355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong> To compare the ability of different electronic health record alert types to elicit responses from users caring for cancer patients benefiting from goals of care (GOC) conversations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> A validated question asking if the user would be surprised by the patient's 6-month mortality was built as an Epic BestPractice Advisory (BPA) alert in three versions-(1) Required on Open chart (pop-up BPA), (2) Required on Close chart (navigator BPA), and (3) Optional Persistent (Storyboard BPA)-randomized using patient medical record number. Meaningful responses were defined as \"Yes\" or \"No,\" rather than deferral. Data were extracted over 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Alerts appeared for 685 patients during 1,786 outpatient encounters. Measuring encounters where a meaningful response was elicited, rates were highest for Required on Open (94.8% of encounters), compared with Required on Close (90.1%) and Optional Persistent (19.7%) (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Measuring individual alerts to which responses were given, they were most likely meaningful with Optional Persistent (98.3% of responses) and least likely with Required on Open (68.0%) (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Responses of \"No,\" suggesting poor prognosis and prompting GOC, were more likely with Optional Persistent (13.6%) and Required on Open (10.3%) than with Required on Close (7.0%) (<i>p</i> = 0.028).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Required alerts had response rates almost five times higher than optional alerts. Timing of alerts affects rates of meaningful responses and possibly the response itself. The alert with the most meaningful responses was also associated with the most interruptions and deferral responses. Considering tradeoffs in these metrics is important in designing clinical decision support to maximize success.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10937092/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2247-9355","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives:  To compare the ability of different electronic health record alert types to elicit responses from users caring for cancer patients benefiting from goals of care (GOC) conversations.

Methods:  A validated question asking if the user would be surprised by the patient's 6-month mortality was built as an Epic BestPractice Advisory (BPA) alert in three versions-(1) Required on Open chart (pop-up BPA), (2) Required on Close chart (navigator BPA), and (3) Optional Persistent (Storyboard BPA)-randomized using patient medical record number. Meaningful responses were defined as "Yes" or "No," rather than deferral. Data were extracted over 6 months.

Results:  Alerts appeared for 685 patients during 1,786 outpatient encounters. Measuring encounters where a meaningful response was elicited, rates were highest for Required on Open (94.8% of encounters), compared with Required on Close (90.1%) and Optional Persistent (19.7%) (p < 0.001). Measuring individual alerts to which responses were given, they were most likely meaningful with Optional Persistent (98.3% of responses) and least likely with Required on Open (68.0%) (p < 0.001). Responses of "No," suggesting poor prognosis and prompting GOC, were more likely with Optional Persistent (13.6%) and Required on Open (10.3%) than with Required on Close (7.0%) (p = 0.028).

Conclusion:  Required alerts had response rates almost five times higher than optional alerts. Timing of alerts affects rates of meaningful responses and possibly the response itself. The alert with the most meaningful responses was also associated with the most interruptions and deferral responses. Considering tradeoffs in these metrics is important in designing clinical decision support to maximize success.

随机比较电子健康记录警报类型在激发妇科肿瘤患者对预后的反应方面的作用。
目的比较不同类型的电子健康记录警报在诱导癌症患者护理用户从护理目标(GOC)对话中受益的能力:一个经过验证的问题询问用户是否会对患者 6 个月的死亡率感到惊讶,该问题作为 Epic 最佳实践建议(BPA)提示,有三个版本:1)打开病历时必须回答(弹出式 BPA);2)关闭病历时必须回答(导航式 BPA);3)可选的持续回答(故事板 BPA)--使用患者病历号随机排列。有意义的回复被定义为 "是 "或 "否",而不是推迟。数据提取历时 6 个月:结果:在 1,786 次门诊就诊中,有 685 名患者收到了警报。在有意义的应答中,开放时要求应答的应答率最高(占应答的 94.8%),相比之下,关闭时要求应答的应答率为 90.1%,可选持续应答的应答率为 19.7%(p 结论:在有意义的应答中,开放时要求应答的应答率最高(占应答的 94.8%),相比之下,关闭时要求应答的应答率为 90.1%,可选持续应答的应答率为 19.7%:必要警报的响应率几乎是可选警报的五倍。警报的时间会影响有意义回复的比率,也可能会影响回复本身。有意义响应最多的警报也与中断和延迟响应最多有关。考虑这些指标的权衡对于设计临床决策支持以取得最大成功非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信